Is it truly possible to use my mechanism to separate the wheat from the chaff in finding credible financial analysts to follow by reviewing an analyst’s historical calls and then only following the ones that consistently make correct calls? I recorded the above podcast in response to some replies that this is not possible, as many analysts delete all online posts of past historical calls that were wrong, and especially those calls that have been grossly and comically wrong. Even if this is indeed true, there is still a way to use my method to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to analysts. For ones that you follow, simply keep a notebook and document all their calls, so even if they delete their horrible calls, you can go back and check their calls against your records. Secondly, I review an alternative methodology by which you can still check their historical calls, even if they delete them, in the above podcast.
One thing I promise to you is that I’ve left all my calls here, completely unaltered and for your review both here and on patreon, whether my calls involved discussions about put or call options on specific stocks or simple long positions on underlying assets. I have never deleted any call of mine that has been wrong on either platform and you have my word on this going forward as well.
Moving on, one of my paying subscribers on this platform forwarded an article to me about a popular online BTC maximalist that discussed this analyst’s recent removal of all mentions of BTC from his twitter tagline and profile after repeatedly making extremely bullish BTC price predictions that never came true and posed the question, “Are we seeing the capitulation of BTC maximalists?” I took a screenshot of the tweets included in that article in response to this analyst’s apparent capitulation and have presented it below.
I used the word “apparent”, because in the article, his stated position strongly conflicted with his actions, and he stated that he was currently as committed to BTC as ever before. Thus, on the basis of his words, the answer is no. Though I follow zero financial analysts online, I am still cognizant of this analyst because one of my members asked me to critique one of his analytical podcasts just a couple of months ago. And to gain perspective, I have read dozens of articles written by other analysts regarding a number of different assets. I just don’t follow any of them. In any event, this member stated that his desire for me to critique this podcast originated out of a belief that everything stated by the analyst in the forwarded podcast “sounded quite reasonable”.
My response, after listening to the podcast, was that nearly all of the most popular online analysts are far superior marketing experts than financial analysts, so I expect nearly all financial analysis rendered by such people to “sound reasonable”. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have millions of people that blindly follow all their guidance, with most of it leading their followers’ finances straight into the toilet this year. However, the true test was if their reasonable sounding analysis actually stood up to a litmus test of financial truth, and most times, the answer is overwhelmingly “no.” If memory serves me correct, I found at least half a dozen of patently false statements issued by this analyst in less than twenty minutes of provided analysis.
Because I have never followed the above mentioned analyst, I do not know if the tweeted critiques of his “important message” tweets regarding the next BTC leg higher in prices are true or not. In fact, I don’t even know if he provides any other analysis other than cryptocurrency analysis, though I’m assuming he does if he has removed all mention of cryptocurrency analysis from his Twitter profile now. However, I have also post this analyst’s response of a laughing emoji to people requesting him not to post another “important message” about an imminent BTC leg higher in price when BTC breaks the $10k barrier (and yes my choice of the word “when” not “if” is conscious and deliberate).
